![]() ![]() However once picture is supported, that is a better option than the alternative, which is that those who have JavaScript disabled in browser that supports picture would see two copies of the same image. Initially, the 0.2% of site traffic that actually has JavaScript disabled will see alt text rather than an image. Modify tests to no longer check for the noscript element or fallback image. Remove supporting functions that generate the fallback image in the noscript element Seth at 13:04 Seth browsers are too permissive (promiscuous). If you do want to change the behavior of a browser on such a fundamental level you will probably have to roll your own. You could of course try to use actual NoScript or AdBlockers which usually also block those things. Modify markup to remove noscript element 1 Short of that you won't have an option. Remove noscript from our markup for the picture element. That means that 0.2% of traffic will see alt text instead of an image, but that's probably better than getting two copies of an images downloaded and displayed, which slows down page rendering time and screws up the layout. A better solution is to drop noscript from our markup. As browsers start to implement picture support, though, noscript will become a real problem for those people, as it will cause them to see two copies of an image. So right now noscript provides a benefit to a small number of people: the 0.2% of traffic where JS is disabled in the browser. If JS is enabled but not working, noscript doesn't do anything: that's a much larger percentage, about 0.9% of traffic. ) shows that noscript only works when JS is disabled in the browser, which is about 0.2% of traffic. The problem is that for those who are using a browser that supports picture, but have JavaScript disabled, they will get two copies of the image downloaded and displayed, which is really bad. ![]() Once that change is made, we will have another issue, which is detailed in an issue related to the refactoring of the polyfill for the picture element, Picturefill: Var tgtTags = document.getElementsByTagName('noscript') Īlert("Num of noscript tags: " + tgtTags.length) Īlert("Num of noscript tags: " + tgtTags.We are working to add an empty img element inside the picture element in issue #2220865: Add empty img element inside picture element to match up with the current version of the picture specification, and to ensure that the img displayed by the picture element (once supported by browsers) has a proper alt attribute. Window.addEventListener('load', onDocLoaded, false) (1) to fire on a button press, so you can see the effect in the DOM viewer of your browser's JS tools. Dunno, probably mostly irrelevant here anyway. either querySelector/querySelectorAll may have been the odd one out - returning an array that doesn't change as the document does. I forget the specifics, but I read about it the other day. The NodeList returned by getElementsByTagName is live and as such, changes size to reflect operations on the collection of elements it represents - this is why there's only one call needed to getElementsByTagName. Next, you don't need to use an id - you can grab it with any number of methods. I do this by waiting until all elements, images and scripts have been loaded. It wouldn't make any sense including jQuery just for this tiny script.)įirstly, you need to ensure that the tag exists when the javascript is called. But I plan on using the script on sites that do not use it. (I want to note that this site in fact uses jQuery. I use this to asynchronously load some stylsheets. The noscript tag is located inside the tag. I need to remove it because the code working with the element might be executed several times. Since I am accessing the element over an specific ID and using it's content a working solution might be changing the ID or emptying the content. Noscript.innerHTML = "" // doesn't do anything Noscript.outerHTML = "" // doesn't do anything (noscript) // noscript.parentNode is null I tried these: // The noscript tag has a id. I am trying to remove a tag with JavaScript. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |