Posted by Rik on 07/14/06 10:26

Neredbojias wrote:
> To further the education of mankind, "Rik"
> <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> vouchsafed:
>
>>>> It is, and IMO javascript should never be used for styling, a page
>>>> has to look the same with & without.
>>>
>>> If css is actually used for presentational aspects only and is
>>> really dispensible as it is supposed to be then javascript can abet
>>> or even replace it (within its capabilities) to an equal degree of
>>> validity.
>>
>> Excuse me? You're saying: if we actually can seperate content from
>> presentation, we must jam it in the scripting functionality... Which
>> is as bad or even worse (in my opinion the second).
>
> You're excused. That's not what I'm saying. I _am_ saying that
> javascript _can_ be used to enhance presentation just as equitably as
> can css or any other styling method. "Jamming things in scripting
> functionality' has nothing to do with it except to denigrate the
> language.
>
>> I'm one of these pesky little dudes who has javascript turned of most
>> of the time, with IMO good reason.
>
> Uh, me, too. Dimwits have abused javascript in the past and continue
> to do so to a lesser extent today. Nevertheless, the doesn't make
> javascript any less viable a styling method.

But a vary unreliable one because of the number of people that have it
turned of.

>> That doesn't mean I don't want to
>> see a nice page. If your page then becomes unreadable, I'm BTW more
>> likely to turn of the CSS then turn the javascript on.
>
> Well, it's certainly a matter of degree, but if css/styling does,
> indeed, matter that much, it's hardly optional then, is it?

I refer you to my earlier comment :-)

"3. Has to be semantically, logicial HTML.
6. Has to make sense without CSS (which is actually derived from point 3
offcourse)."

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus

[Back to original message]