"Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote: >> On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> > But that's a decision based on your needs as a website >> > developer. If JS best suits whatever the needs of a particular >> > website developer are, then they are completely justified in >> > using it, >> > because 99% of the people out there have it enabled in their >> > browsers. >> >> If it takes ten seconds to support 100% of the people out there, >> why not? > > [snip] > >> Now, there *are* cases where you can't do this so easily. >> If you're stuck on poor PHP I'm sure this is harder than >> in D too... but really, do you have one of those cases? > > All I'm saying is that if it makes sense for the web developer to use > javascript given what they're trying to do, it's completely reasonable to > expect that their users will have javascript enabled (since virtually > everyone > does). If there's a better tool for the job which is reasonably supported, > then all the better. And if it's easy to provide a workaround for the lack > of > JS at minimal effort, then great. But given the fact that only a very > small > percentage of your user base is going to have JS disabled, it's not > unreasonable to require it and not worry about the people who disable it > if > that's what you want to do. >
Personally, I disagree with the notion that non-JS versions are a "workaround".
