On Feb 10, 8:29 pm, Lars Schwarz <lars.schw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well, it's like fixing IE6 bugs. i mostly double-code functions like
> form-checks that are
> again for the case
The reason to check on the server isn't because scripting might be
disabled, but because your server can't possibly know how the response
> if you can't "double-code" some functions make sure the most important
> work without
> in most cases
> it's no problem if some effects don't work, but make sure basic
> functions like form-validations
> or whatever you call basic-functionality on your project works with
Yes, absolutely. I find it contradictory that some pursue a strategy
of separating HTML and script, make their site utterly dependent on
scripting. One result is that they have no recourse to simple HTML
when all else fails.
> on the other hand (really depends on your project) it's ok inform the
> user that he has to turn
That is usually only appropriate on an intranet or special purpose
site (e.g. banking or share trading).
> i guess it's a matter of taste. i remember sites warning the user if
> he used an old browser,
> or sites that alert users that "this site is optimized for <insert
> browser name> here". i prefer
> sites that make use of standards and work on (nearly) all browsers.
Yes. Forcing the use of scripting on the general web is akin to both
those outdated strategies.
> see how they handle it :)
I use NoScript always and only allow the scripts that are absolutely
necessary to use a site to run (mostly none at all). I have yet to
find a reason to allow adsense or google-analytics to run.
> imho: have some kind of fallback and make sure basic
> functionality/validations/checks work,
> my 10 cents.
I'd second that.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at