4 ms·
I think this is overblown. <noscript> works fine for simple things like "this page requires javascript" messages. Of course it doesn't work when scripting is en
by perilunar 5mo ago
I think this is overblown. <noscript> works fine for simple things like "this page requires javascript" messages. Of course it doesn't work when scripting is enabled but scripts fails to load for some reason.
The WHATWG recommendation:
it's generally better to avoid using noscript, and to instead design
the script to change the page from being a scriptless page to a
scripted page on the fly,
is fine as it is, but changing the page after scripts load can potentially mean seeing the no-script content briefly (FOUC - Flash of Unscripted Content). Putting the message in a <noscript> tag avoids that.
- account42 5mo ago> is fine as it is, but changing the page after scripts load can potentially mean seeing the no-script content briefly (FOUC - Flash of Unscripted Content). Putting the message in a <noscript> tag avoids that. These days you can use CSS to only show the message after a short delay. But the majority of websites have no business actually requiring JS so the W3C recommendation is the only one that matters.
- xg15 5mo ago> These days you can use CSS to only show the message after a short delay. This sounds bad for accessibility though. Wouldn't the issue stay the same for screen readers or (legitimate) scrapers?
- sidewndr46 5mo agoI think the viewpoint in the article could be summarized as "noscript is not Turing complete and thus cannot solve all problems with javascript"