On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... [...] > > 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". [...]
Me too. To me, non-JS versions are the *baseline*, and JS versions are enchancements. To treat JS versions as baseline and non-JS versions as "workaround" is just so completely backwards. T -- There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't.
