Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > 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.
Good for you. I commend you on your efforts. >> 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.) Such dumb devices would likely need their own dumbed down page anyway. I won't base my pages targeted for "real" browsers based on dumb mobile devices. >> 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. True enough. However, I don't like iframes much better than the meta refresh. -- 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.
