Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-19 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> This to me is a new way of thinking, as I Generally use , > The sites I work on are heavily js and jquery, and none of it is > embedded all linked. . > > Can you tell me where I might find hands on tutorial? Hi Nancy, If you look at the section of this page you should see how the whole thing

Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-19 Thread Nancy Johnson
This to me is a new way of thinking, as I Generally use , The sites I work on are heavily js and jquery, and none of it is embedded all linked. . Can you tell me where I might find hands on tutorial? Thanks Nancy On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote: >> My need to utilize n

Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-18 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> My need to utilize noscript tags or something similar stems from the > exact > problem mentioned here - styles won't kick in fast enough when adding > ".js" > to the body or some other method. For example, in my js degraded > version, I Actually, I mentioned using the *HTML* element rather than

Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-18 Thread Jess Jacobs
.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward > > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:26 AM > > To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org > > Subject: Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation > > > > On 12 February 2010 21:01, Jess Jacobs > > wrote: > > > A

Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-13 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d- > boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:26 AM > To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org > Subject: Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation > > On 12 February 20

Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-13 Thread David Dorward
On 12 February 2010 21:01, Jess Jacobs wrote: > A thought occurred to me recently: >         > > .nojs #content-packs { display: block; } > > > 1. Does anyone see anything fundamentally wrong with this approach? (We > could make this an include, as well, for good form, but I'm trying to stick

Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-12 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d- > boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Jess Jacobs > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 1:02 PM > To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org > Subject: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation > > Hey everyone, > > I&#

Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-12 Thread Spellacy, Michael
chael "Spell" Spellacy -Original Message- From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Wonsil Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 4:40 PM To: Jess Jacobs Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Subject: Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and d

Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-12 Thread Mark Wonsil
> 1. Does anyone see anything fundamentally wrong with this approach? (We > could make this an include, as well, for good form, but I'm trying to stick > to simple nuts and bolts here.) > > 2. Can someone suggest an approach they might think is superior? I like the idea of using progressive enhanc

[css-d] Noscript tags and degradation

2010-02-12 Thread Jess Jacobs
Hey everyone, I'd like to start a discussion around js-degradation options, and I'm wondering what people's approaches are. I've tried several over the years, and it's constantly evolving. A thought occurred to me recently: .nojs #content-packs { display: block; } could be placed wi