 | |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
noscript trap redirection thats 4.01 trans compliant -
02-04-2005
, 10:34 AM
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
I want to trap if a browser has JavaScript disabled and redirect to a warning page for a page that requires scripting to be view. And the 'Catch' is to make it 4.01 transitional compliant I tried: noscript><META http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=/cgi-bin/error.cgi?e=nojs"></noscript in the head but this produces a nesting error the validator...any ideas been googling away but have discovered anything useful yet... |
has JS from a server. Have it redirect instead.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
I want to trap if a browser has JavaScript disabled and redirect to a warning page for a page that requires scripting to be view. And the 'Catch' is to make it 4.01 transitional compliant I tried: noscript><META http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=/cgi-bin/error.cgi?e=nojs"></noscript in the head but this produces a nesting error the validator...any ideas |
So if you insist on having pages that only work with JS reverse the
process. Have a standard page at the primary URL and use a JS redirect
in that page to redirect to the JS page.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
I want to trap if a browser has JavaScript disabled and redirect to a warning page for a page that requires scripting to be view. And the 'Catch' is to make it 4.01 transitional compliant I tried: noscript><META http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=/cgi-bin/error.cgi?e=nojs"></noscript in the head but this produces a nesting error the validator...any ideas been googling away but have discovered anything useful yet... |
anyways.
Why? How does the script know what to do before the page is loaded?
<body>
<noscript>
Your javascript is turned off.
<a href="whatever">Click here</a> for a suitable page.
</noscript>
</body>
I would much rather have the choice of going elsewhere then being redirected
automatically and instantly.
I may be wrong, but I think the refresh thing has to have a value greater
than "0".
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:34:00 GMT Jonathan N. Little wrote: I want to trap if a browser has JavaScript disabled and redirect to a warning page for a page that requires scripting to be view. And the 'Catch' is to make it 4.01 transitional compliant I tried: noscript><META http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=/cgi-bin/error.cgi?e=nojs"></noscript in the head but this produces a nesting error the validator...any ideas been googling away but have discovered anything useful yet... You could try putting the <noscript> in the body which is where it belongs anyways. Why? How does the script know what to do before the page is loaded? body noscript Your javascript is turned off. a href="whatever">Click here</a> for a suitable page. /noscript /body I would much rather have the choice of going elsewhere then being redirected automatically and instantly. I may be wrong, but I think the refresh thing has to have a value greater than "0". Thank I'll have to rethink this. |
Some of the page content is dynamically inserted with client side
script, it generates the site's navigation and other aspects. I want to
trap that and redirect to a page that explained this and way it was
important to the site. Didn't want to use SSI on all may pages, and for
some thing client side is very effect and efficient than doing it all
server side.
Maybe I will do as you suggest and have the noscript create a small
warning banner at the top of the page will a link to my more descriptive
error page for assistance, since this is the only error that the W3C
validator flags on my pages....
Oh, and you might be right about the refresh time value, should look it
up to refresh my memory!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote: I want to trap if a browser has JavaScript disabled and redirect to a warning page for a page that requires scripting to be view. And the 'Catch' is to make it 4.01 transitional compliant I tried: noscript><META http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=/cgi-bin/error.cgi?e=nojs"></noscript in the head but this produces a nesting error the validator...any ideas noscript> isn't valid inside <head>. So if you insist on having pages that only work with JS reverse the process. Have a standard page at the primary URL and use a JS redirect in that page to redirect to the JS page. Steve |
validity to the tag's location. It is normally displaying regular markup
that must in the in body...
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html40....html#h-18.3.1
Scripts in HTML documents
I just haven't found this to be the easiest read :-)
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
I want to trap if a browser has JavaScript disabled and redirect to a warning page for a page that requires scripting to be view. |
them to "upgrade" to a browser of your liking?
Quote:
|
And the 'Catch' is to make it 4.01 transitional compliant |
makes no sense.
Quote:
|
been googling away but have discovered anything useful yet... |
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22this+page+requires%22
If you used JavaScript for something useful, you would simply include
a <noscript> element that explains the situation, as prominently as you
like, hopefully telling what the user really gains if he turns JavaScript
on.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
Jonathan N. Little wrote: Didn't want to use SSI on all may pages, and for some thing client side is very effect and efficient than doing it all server side. "I didn't want to use SSI" has to be the dumbest reason for a Javascript navigation system that I've ever heard. "I don't have SSI available" or "I don't know how to use SSI" or "What the hell is SSI?!" are all much better excuses. |
my site.
2. Obviously your a 'structure vs style' guy
3. Client side can very efficient and effective tool where client
interaction is important to the site verses relying solely server side
especial for slow dialup visitors
4. Aesthetics and style can be an integral part of the purpose of a
website. Depends on the nature and function of your site. May not suit
yours, but I am an artist, and a just Sargent Friday's approach of "Just
the fact's Mame" neither serves my patrons, nor sells my art.
Disagree with me, that's fine, if you don't have anything constructive,
don't insult me.
--
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
3. Client side can very efficient and effective tool where client interaction is important to the site verses relying solely server side especial for slow dialup visitors |
Javascript-generated navigation system can be more "efficient" than
generating it server-side?
And why is it more "effective"? Quite the opposite, I would've thought,
seeing as anyone with Javascript disabled won't be able to use your
site, *and* search engines won't be able to index any of your pages.
Quote:
|
4. Aesthetics and style can be an integral part of the purpose of a website. |
be usable) is the most important aspect of a web page? Aesthetics,
whilst very important, should come second to the emphasis on designing
your site so that the user can actually use it.
--
Oli
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
Jonathan N. Little wrote: 3. Client side can very efficient and effective tool where client interaction is important to the site verses relying solely server side especial for slow dialup visitors Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand how a Javascript-generated navigation system can be more "efficient" than generating it server-side? |
than then validating solely server side and bouncing the page back for
correction and be resubmitted. If some form input offers different
options, javascript is much faster refilling option lists or field
recalulations then requiring the form be sumitted each step of the way,
are a couple of example I can think of at the moment.
Quote:
|
And why is it more "effective"? Quite the opposite, I would've thought, seeing as anyone with Javascript disabled won't be able to use your site, *and* search engines won't be able to index any of your pages. |
bots to 'see' the page fully rendered and links therefore traversable,
then that would be advantageous. I would just have to convert the
managment of my links from the javascript db to CGI and just use
includes for the navbar insertion. If they have JS disabled they will
just loose some of the 'bell & whistles' (Thinking out loud)...
I don't mind being wrong, I did ask for advice not abuse....Thanks Oli
I'm going to ponder this some more....
Quote:
|
4. Aesthetics and style can be an integral part of the purpose of a website. Surely basic functionality (i.e. a site that is guaranteed to work and be usable) is the most important aspect of a web page? Aesthetics, whilst very important, should come second to the emphasis on designing your site so that the user can actually use it. |
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.