🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37a49c21.8833504@news.dircon.co.uk>, see_sig@for_my_addr.?
writes
>Why does Dreamweaver accept anything between <script> and </script>
>but objects to code between <nscript> and </noscript> with the usual
>yellow highlighting?

Check the browser preferences setup in Dreamweaver.

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 :-)

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

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

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  :-)

-- 
Tony Morgan                          e-mail: tonym@atomor.com
Atomor Web Limited                     http://www.atomor.com
Web by design                          http://www.atomor.demon.co.uk

Tony Morgan in comp.lang.javascript (Mon, 2 Aug 1999 07:46:14 +0100):

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

Moreover, in some IE4's <NOSCRIPT> does not seem to work properly. If JS
is turned off, you will not see the contents between the NOSCRIPT tags.
IE4 seems to interpre <NOSCRIPT> as <SCRIPT>.

Jan

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

In article <933599261.12160.0.nnrp-09.9e987a76@news.demon.co.uk>, Nick
Darlington <news@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>I certainly had been led to believe that if a script language
>wasn't supported, that <NOSCRIPT> content should be displayed...

The contents of the NOSCRIPT element is (supposed) to be visible if
*any* script earlier in the document has failed to execute. This can
include not executing because the scripting language is not supported
(see HTML 4.0 spec).

Well that's the theory. I dunno what the browsers actually do.

-- 
George Lund