Robert Walker wrote: > Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: >> Whereas I'd use it in preference to the JS, because it's more reliably >> guaranteed to work. > > I've given up the battle to make everything work without JavaScript.
I have not and will not, except in isolated circumstances. > JavaScript is most certainly winning this fight. It's not an issue of winning. I'm perfectly happy to use JS where it's necessary (with appropriate degradation), but I think it is silly, in most cases, to use it to duplicate HTML features. > Hardly anyone disables > it anymore so I think it safe enough to be relying on it. Now that's just not true at all. If nothing else, lots of mobile browsers have deficient or nonexistent JS implementation -- even on smartphones like the BlackBerry Curve. (I speak from experience.) > For those few > holdouts that are disabling it, the refresh feature won't work so they > have to reload the page themselves. That still beats refreshing the > entire page with no option to disable that "feature." Depends on the use case. And you *could* use an iframe to do something similar without JS, though that has its own compatibility issues. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
