RE: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Hi group,
Thought for completion I thought I'd show the finalised valid code.
I didn't like breaking validation by using either:
head
...
noscript
link rel=stylesheet href=noscript.css
type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
...
/head
Or:
body
...
noscript
link rel=stylesheet href=noscript.css
type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
...
/body
In the end I opted for adding the CSS to the standard file.
Accepting the extra 4052 B file-size hit which everyone now gets.
The method employed required preceding each No JS specific selector with
.noJS.
Then:
head
...
style type=text/css
All styles severed here.
/style
...
/head
body class=noJS
script
type=text/javascript/*![CDATA[*/document.body.className=;/*]]*//script
...
/body
Thanks
Mike Foskett
http://websemantics.co.uk/
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Foskett, Mike
mike.fosk...@uk.tesco.commailto:mike.fosk...@uk.tesco.com wrote:
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately 1 million
hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb - 330 Kb),
JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved the
initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all the images,
used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and the link
in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript containing a
link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet
href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the link
reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had a more
valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The
views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.orgmailto:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a document: solution? wasrebecca.dal...@perpetual.com.au received by: at:09/08/2011 11:37:24 AM __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Hi Tee, On an iPad touching one of the tabs changes the tab content, in the same manner as hover, while tapping it twice activates the link itself. Standard iPad / iPhone behaviour I thought? Regards Mike -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of tee Sent: 14 July 2011 22:07 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution? Mike, Joe praised the site so I took a look from iPad as I was reading email in bed - the tabs on the homepage are not touchscreen friendly though. Touching each tab the panel ketp chaning but links to nowhere. tee On Jul 14, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote: Not sure what to recommend for the noscript tag - Frank's idea is pretty good. Just a thought, is the error really critical if it works? Using XHTML Strict, you're gonna have a tough time making the validator happy. Nice job on the Tesco site by the way. Real nice. I especially like the two sections of links with changing images - that's just badass! Joseph R. B. Taylor Web Designer/Developer -- Sites by Joe Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Phone: (508) 840-9657 Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Thanks Frank but the technique will not work with CSS definitions.
The JavaScript itself isn't a necessity and doesn't require noscript apart
from applying noJS.css
If the backgrounds are stated in a loaded css then it is fetched regardless
of even a display none property.
That is:
.imgRef {background:url(...)}
.hasJS .imgRef {display:none}
Or:
.imgRef {display:none; background:url(...);}
Or:
.non-existent-class {display:none; background:url(...)}
Does not prevent IE loading the background-image.
So maybe a better question would be:
How do you prevent any browsers loading a background graphic stated in CSS?
That would remove the need for the noJS.css file completely.
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/http://websemantics.co.uk/
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Frank M. Palinkas
Sent: 14 July 2011 13:41
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Hi Mike,
Don't know if this will help, but I wrote an article last year on replacing the
noscript element with Dom/JavaScript.
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/replacing-noscript-with-accessible-un/
Med vennlig hilsen / Kind regards,
Frank M. Palinkas
Senior Technical Writer, Web Standards and Accessibility Designer
Core Engineering, Opera Software ASA, Oslo, Norway
Mobile: (+47) 95 17 61 11
Web standards and accessibility tutorials: http://dev.opera.com/author/947856
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Foskett, Mike
mike.fosk...@uk.tesco.commailto:mike.fosk...@uk.tesco.com wrote:
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately 1 million
hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb - 330 Kb),
JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved the
initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all the images,
used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and the link
in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript containing a
link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet
href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the link
reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had a more
valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The
views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.orgmailto:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Mike, I have not learned all the touch gestures yet so I am not positive tapping twice activates the link is correct behavior, at least not until today that I see it in tesco site. Tapping twice is zoom in though, this is how I understand it, and tapping twice in tesco site also enlarge the tapped area of the page, but it also activates the link, however it takes a frustrating guessing, for example, it doesn't work on the top section of the tabs, but works for the vertical ones where Liftstyle Community is, but it only works the second time after the area has been zoom-in (first twice tapping), and there is quite a bit of guessing to tap on the right area to trigger the link. For the tabs on the top, it doesn't work, but I found out, the first tap open up the panel, and the second tap on the same area activates the link, the same works for vertical ones too. So this seems correct and echos the desktop's behavior, first hover, then click to link destination. I am not a very savvy touchscreen user yet, so I am not fully sure if it's just me who found it confusing (and I really expect the first tap brings me to the destination for a normal link), or the majority people will find it confusing too. My though has always been, there is no hover for touchscreen device, so I don't use the hover for link, and for effect like tabs, accordion, or collapsing panel, I don't use the same area for link that switches between tabs or accordion menu link to another page. And the confusion comes from this: I first visited the site from iPad, I couldn't visit any page in the mentioned areas【1】but the tab switching between panel is an expected result. Then I visited the page from desktop browser, and I saw hover is for switching panel, click for the link destination. 【1】 Did you already re-worked the area? I remember I also tapped the same tab twice, not simultaneously but after the panel has opened the first time I visited the page, I also remember I tapped the content in the panel to look for link. tee On Jul 15, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Foskett, Mike wrote: Hi Tee, On an iPad touching one of the tabs changes the tab content, in the same manner as hover, while tapping it twice activates the link itself. Standard iPad / iPhone behaviour I thought? Regards Mike -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of tee Sent: 14 July 2011 22:07 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution? Mike, Joe praised the site so I took a look from iPad as I was reading email in bed - the tabs on the homepage are not touchscreen friendly though. Touching each tab the panel ketp chaning but links to nowhere. tee On Jul 14, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote: Not sure what to recommend for the noscript tag - Frank's idea is pretty good. Just a thought, is the error really critical if it works? Using XHTML Strict, you're gonna have a tough time making the validator happy. Nice job on the Tesco site by the way. Real nice. I especially like the two sections of links with changing images - that's just badass! Joseph R. B. Taylor Web Designer/Developer -- Sites by Joe Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Phone: (508) 840-9657 Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Regarding the tapping twice bit: Mobile Safari on iOS has special logic built-in to emulate onmouseover / hover events for situations where that action triggers a change in the page (DOM change or something that gets changed in terms of display:none / visibility:hidden etc). See the breakdown of the One Finger Events on http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/HandlingEvents/HandlingEvents.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40006511-SW1 Worth noting though that other mobile browsers don't currently have that particular heuristic (though I know of at least one that's planning to add something similar). P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately 1 million
hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb - 330 Kb),
JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved the
initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all the images,
used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and the link
in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript containing a
link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet
href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the link
reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had a more
valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The
views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
On 14/07/2011 11:36, Foskett, Mike wrote:
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately
1 million hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb -
330 Kb), JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than
on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved
the initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all
the images, used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and
the link in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript
containing a link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css
type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the
link reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had
a more valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/ http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails.
The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire
EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Would a FQDN link not work? Instead of calling the file locally,
http://tesco.com/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css;
Can't say I have come across this before, whenever I have used the
noscript element, it has always been in the header and passed the W3C
validator.
--
Mike Flanagan
CCO Telford Computer Doctor
http://www.telfordpc.co.uk
i...@telfordpc.co.uk
0800 058 8914
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
On 14/07/2011 11:36, Foskett, Mike wrote:
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately
1 million hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb -
330 Kb), JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than
on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved
the initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all
the images, used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and
the link in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript
containing a link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css
type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the
link reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had
a more valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/ http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails.
The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire
EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Failing that, could you not implement php to check whether there JS is
enabled, if not, it can echo the StyleSheet.
--
Mike Flanagan
CCO Telford Computer Doctor
http://www.telfordpc.co.uk
i...@telfordpc.co.uk
0800 058 8914
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
On 14/07/2011 11:36, Foskett, Mike wrote:
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately
1 million hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb -
330 Kb), JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than
on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved
the initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all
the images, used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and
the link in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript
containing a link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css
type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the
link reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had
a more valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/ http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails.
The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire
EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking - PHP (server side) / JS (client
side) - It is one of them days - I will let one of the more professional
members reply instead.
--
Mike Flanagan
CCO Telford Computer Doctor
http://www.telfordpc.co.uk
i...@telfordpc.co.uk
0800 058 8914
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
RE: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the response.
noscript is illegal when placed in the head under XHTML v1 strict.
Reports 3 errors:
1. noscript not allowed here.
2. document type doesn't allow link here.
3. end tag for object omitted - The killer failure as it refers to the
/head element.
I tried a full URI too but it made no difference.
While the same in the body reports one error, does not allow link here.
Server-side languages cannot detect JavaScript on / off on initial page request.
Regards
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/http://websemantics.co.uk/
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Support
Sent: 14 July 2011 12:08
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
On 14/07/2011 11:36, Foskett, Mike wrote:
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately 1 million
hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb - 330 Kb),
JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved the
initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all the images,
used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and the link
in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript containing a
link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet
href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the link
reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had a more
valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The
views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.orgmailto:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Failing that, could you not implement php to check whether there JS is enabled,
if not, it can echo the StyleSheet.
--
Mike Flanagan
CCO Telford Computer Doctor
http://www.telfordpc.co.uk
i...@telfordpc.co.ukmailto:i...@telfordpc.co.uk
0800 058 8914
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
On 14/07/2011 13:05, Foskett, Mike wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the response.
noscript is illegal when placed in the head under XHTML v1 strict.
Reports 3 errors:
1. noscript not allowed here.
2. document type doesn't allow link here.
3. end tag for object omitted - The killer failure as it refers to
the /head element.
I tried a full URI too but it made no difference.
While the same in the body reports one error, does not allow link here.
Server-side languages cannot detect JavaScript on / off on initial
page request.
Regards
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/ http://websemantics.co.uk/
*From:*li...@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] *On Behalf Of *Support
*Sent:* 14 July 2011 12:08
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a
solution?
On 14/07/2011 11:36, Foskett, Mike wrote:
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately
1 million hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb -
330 Kb), JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than
on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved
the initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all
the images, used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and
the link in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript
containing a link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css
type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the
link reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had
a more valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/ http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails.
The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire
EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
mailto:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Failing that, could you not implement php to check whether there JS is
enabled, if not, it can echo the StyleSheet.
--
Mike Flanagan
CCO Telford Computer Doctor
http://www.telfordpc.co.uk
i...@telfordpc.co.uk mailto:i...@telfordpc.co.uk
0800 058 8914
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
I can see why it would throw the error whilst in the body, as the link
tag belongs in the head tag's.
Could you not create a .css file for non-js that loaded onload, then if
JS is detected, a seperate .css file is loaded?
--
Mike Flanagan
CCO Telford Computer Doctor
http://www.telfordpc.co.uk
i...@telfordpc.co.uk
0800 058 8914
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Hi Mike,
Don't know if this will help, but I wrote an article last year on replacing
the noscript element with Dom/JavaScript.
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/replacing-noscript-with-accessible-un/
Med vennlig hilsen / Kind regards,
Frank M. Palinkas
Senior Technical Writer, Web Standards and Accessibility Designer
Core Engineering, Opera Software ASA, Oslo, Norway
Mobile: (+47) 95 17 61 11
Web standards and accessibility tutorials:
http://dev.opera.com/author/947856
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Foskett, Mike
mike.fosk...@uk.tesco.comwrote:
Hi all,
** **
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
** **
http://www.tesco.com/
** **
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately 1
million hits a day.
** **
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
** **
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb - 330
Kb), JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than on-load or
post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved the
initial page load speed.
** **
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
** **
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all the
images, used or not:
** **
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
** **
Will not work.
** **
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and the
link in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript containing
a link is illegal in the body.
** **
noscript
link rel=stylesheet
href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
** **
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the link
reference is not.
** **
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had a
more valid solution?
** **
** **
Regards,
** **
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/ http://websemantics.co.uk/
--
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The
views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8
9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Not sure what to recommend for the noscript tag - Frank's idea is pretty
good.
Just a thought, is the error really critical if it works? Using XHTML
Strict, you're gonna have a tough time making the validator happy.
Nice job on the Tesco site by the way. Real nice. I especially like the
two sections of links with changing images - that's just badass!
*Joseph R. B. Taylor*
/Web Designer/Developer/
--
Sites by Joe
/Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/
Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com
Phone: (508) 840-9657
Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com
On 7/14/11 8:05 AM, Foskett, Mike wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the response.
noscript is illegal when placed in the head under XHTML v1 strict.
Reports 3 errors:
1. noscript not allowed here.
2. document type doesn't allow link here.
3. end tag for object omitted - The killer failure as it refers to
the /head element.
I tried a full URI too but it made no difference.
While the same in the body reports one error, does not allow link here.
Server-side languages cannot detect JavaScript on / off on initial
page request.
Regards
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/ http://websemantics.co.uk/
*From:*li...@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] *On Behalf Of *Support
*Sent:* 14 July 2011 12:08
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a
solution?
On 14/07/2011 11:36, Foskett, Mike wrote:
Hi all,
Just finished a major update for Tesco's homepage.
http://www.tesco.com/
Tesco's are the UKs largest retailer and this page gets approximately
1 million hits a day.
The page has been speed tweaked as much as possible given IT / server
restraints.
Unfortunately the page now fails W3C formal grammar validation.
Because the page as designed was a massive 1.4MB (previously 260 Kb -
330 Kb), JavaScript was used to fetch image upon demand rather than
on-load or post-load.
This greatly reduced the impact on the servers (critical) and improved
the initial page load speed.
Obviously a no JavaScript version was also required.
The image references cannot be in the standard CSS as IE loaded all
the images, used or not:
.noJS .imgRef {background:url(...)}
Will not work.
All the image references were placed into a separate CSS noJS.css and
the link in a noscript and this is where the validation breaks.
Apparently noscript is illegal in the head, and a noscript
containing a link is illegal in the body.
noscript
link rel=stylesheet href=/homepages/default/noJS.compressed.css
type=text/css media=all /
/noscript
I went for placing it in the body so the noscript is legal but the
link reference is not.
I can see no alternative, and wondered if any of the list members had
a more valid solution?
Regards,
Mike Foskett
http://webSemantics.co.uk/ http://websemantics.co.uk/
This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails.
The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.
Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire
EN8 9SL
VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
mailto:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Failing that, could you not implement php to check whether there JS is
enabled, if not, it can echo the StyleSheet.
--
Mike Flanagan
CCO Telford Computer Doctor
http://www.telfordpc.co.uk
i...@telfordpc.co.uk mailto:i...@telfordpc.co.uk
0800 058 8914
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
On 7/14/2011 11:03 PM, Joseph Taylor wrote: Not sure what to recommend for the noscript tag - Frank's idea is pretty good. Just a thought, is the error really critical if it works? Using XHTML Strict, you're gonna have a tough time making the validator happy. Nice job on the Tesco site by the way. Real nice. I especially like the two sections of links with changing images - that's just badass! *Joseph R. B. Taylor* /Web Designer/Developer/ Just on the noscript tag, isn't it meant to be used within the JS itself and I am quite sure it is deprecated. Which means you would need to use a transitional doctype. Regards Chad. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
Thanks Chad, It all works without JavaScript too. It's not critical to pass validation, I can think of two other circumstances when breaking validation is essential but I didn't want to add another. Regards Mike Foskett http://webSemantics.co.uk/http://websemantics.co.uk/ From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chad Kelly Sent: 14 July 2011 16:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution? On 7/14/2011 11:03 PM, Joseph Taylor wrote: Not sure what to recommend for the noscript tag - Frank's idea is pretty good. Just a thought, is the error really critical if it works? Using XHTML Strict, you're gonna have a tough time making the validator happy. Nice job on the Tesco site by the way. Real nice. I especially like the two sections of links with changing images - that's just badass! Joseph R. B. Taylor Web Designer/Developer Just on the noscript tag, isn't it meant to be used within the JS itself and I am quite sure it is deprecated. Which means you would need to use a transitional doctype. Regards Chad. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Breaking validation using noscript - Is there a solution?
On 14 Jul 2011, at 16:50, Chad Kelly wrote: Just on the noscript tag, isn't it meant to be used within the JS itself No. script elements aren't allowed any child elements. and I am quite sure it is deprecated. It isn't. I recommend against it because it is a binary check and progressive enhancement[1] is a better approach, but it isn't deprecated Which means you would need to use a transitional doctype. The relationship between Appears in transitional but not string and is deprecated is not 1:1. [1] http://icant.co.uk/articles/pragmatic-progressive-enhancement/ -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
