@Barney: I didn't say that the script would automatically identify those elements that require hasLayout. I don't think such a script exists.
I've made two example webpages which require zoom to work in IE7: one with zoom:1 applied using CSS and the other with zoom applied with javascript. roughtech.com/t/example.html and roughtech.com/t/example1.html The rendering delay, which is in the order of microseconds, is almost undetectable. The advantage of this technique is that the stylesheet contains only valid CSS. @Georg: The &hellip is converted to three periods in Firefox 3.6's View Source and in Firebug. This looks like a bug in the browser. After reading your explanation I still don't think the huge amount of non-semantic code is justified. Sure you're site might work perfectly in Internet Explorer 3 running on Windows 95 with a Pentium 200 Mhz and a 14.4 kbps modem, but does anybody care? Why burden search engine bots and normal users with cruft that shouldn't have got past the 90s? ~Chetan On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Barney Carroll <barney.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chetan, you contradict yourself. > > On the one hand, you say that you apply hasLayout via script (I'm still > interested in when you apply it — every method I can think of involves a > delay between initial render and application of the fix — meaning your sites > would have a visual flicker of unfixed layout — not an issue with the other > methods), then on the other hand you say that you apply non-semantic markup > and classes via script as well — and any hook that identified elements > needing hasLayout would have to be non-semantic as it relates to a > render-agent-specific bug — so what purely scripted method do you use to > identify which elements need the fix? > > Again, I'd be very interested to see the full working script for this; or the > revelation that the method is in fact 100% ill-conceived idle theory ;) > > Sent from my iPod > > On 4 Dec 2010, at 07:16, Chetan Crasta <chetancra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> @David: I think it is established, with reasonable accuracy, that a >> very small percentage (~1%) of surfers block Javascript. If somebody >> wants to make sure that their site looks absolutely perfect to the 12 >> people that surf using Internet Explorer 6 with a Javascript blocking >> proxy wearing tin-foil hats, that's their choice -- hats off to them. >> >> As for me, I believe my energy is better spent making my webpages work >> well for 99% of my sites visitors. >> >> ~Chetan >> >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:01 PM, david <gn...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote: >>> Chetan Crasta wrote: >>> >>>> Javascript can considerably improve the aesthetics, >>> >>> Not for a site that's properly-designed in the first place. >>> >>>> usability >>> >>> That is one point where JS can provide functionality. >>> >>>> and semantics of a site, >>> >>> JS should have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEMANTICS of a site. That should be in >>> the HTML where it belongs, NOT IN JS. >>> >>>> so it would be a pity if one disables it just to >>>> avoid the odd bad apple. >>> >>> There's a hell of a lot of "bad apples" out there - tons of malicious sites, >>> scammers even cracking into supposedly-trustworthy services like akamai.net >>> and planting attacks. So it's not the "odd bad apple." >>> >>>> I never had to disable Javascript because good content is found on >>>> well-designed sites. The sites with the ugly Javascript are the ones >>>> that I wouldn't visit more than once, with or without Javascript. >>> >>> I've been on a number of sites where I had to disable their CSS so I could >>> read their content. Sadly, a number of those sites were the home pages of >>> web design firms! >>> >>>> ~Chetan >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Christie Mason <cma...@managersforum.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: Chetan Crasta "About 1% of Yahoo's visitors had Javascript disabled >>>>> (2% for Yahoo USA) " >>>>> >>>>> [-CM-] % of Yahoo visitors disabling js canNOT be used to extrapolate % >>>>> of >>>>> all web users disabling js. I haven't visited Yahoo in years and I'm >>>>> sure >>>>> that's true of a large % of web users. I also suspect that the type of >>>>> visitor who would disable js is not the type of visitor that is attracted >>>>> to >>>>> Yahoo. Then there's information buried in the comments at >>>>> >>>>> http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javas >>>>> cript-disabled/ that Yahoo redirects mobile users to a different page, >>>>> so >>>>> that also skews the results. Within my group of contacts, about 30% >>>>> block >>>>> JavaScript all the time, probably another 10%+ block js some of the time. >>>>> >>>>> You'd have to dig into what % of your target market is also Yahoo >>>>> visitors >>>>> and only if that is a large percentage should Yahoo visitors be used an >>>>> indicator for % of your site's visitors will have js disabled. Web >>>>> visitors are not homogeneous. >>>>> >>>>> But that's not all you should consider. Nothing on the web stays the >>>>> same. >>>>> All it will take is another widespread js security problem then % of >>>>> visitors disabling js would increase. Or maybe another popular mobile >>>>> device will ship with js disabled as default, or a browser with js >>>>> disabled >>>>> as a default, or who knows? >>>>> >>>>> Christie Mason >>> >>> -- >>> David >>> gn...@hawaii.rr.com >>> authenticity, honesty, community >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> 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/ >>> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> 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/ > ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
