> 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 2010 21:01, Jess Jacobs <simulacran.h...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > A thought occurred to me recently: > > <noscript> > > <style> > > .nojs #content-packs { display: block; } > > </style> > > </noscript> > > > 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.) > > In HTML, a <noscript> element may appear only in the <body> and may > not contain <style> elements, > > > 2. Can someone suggest an approach they might think is superior? > > <body> > <script type="text/javascript"> > document.body.className += " js"; > </script>
The problem with using "body" (vs. "html") is that the styling may not kick in soon enough (depending on browsers). -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
