The HTML5 draft is more explicit and probably reflects actual browser behavior. However, this suggests that browsers should not perform any GET operations on the basis of its content in such situations, since such operations would be pointless and would reduce efficiency. The HTML 4.01 specification says just that the content of noscript is not rendered in certain situations. – I hope that I don’t somehow offend anyone at the Stack Exchange network for pointing this out!) (And there certainly does not seem to be any retro ’98-style layout techniques going on, I am glad to say!) -) If this assumption is correct (and there isn’t any other reason for using a blank 1x1 pixel image here that I’ve overlooked here), therefore this would basically confirm the following: browsers do not download the contents of anything within a NOSCRIPT element, except in the situation that JavaScript is actually disabled. I am assuming that this image must be used by analytics/statistics software to detect how many of their users are browsing without JavaScript. However, what interested me was the IMG element, which referenced a 1px by 1px invisible image. Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled “Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled”īeing the type of web geek who tends to “view source” at practically every single website I look at (!), the HTML code for the message is as follows: Well, at the very top of this web page, Stack Overflow have a warning message which states: I had just been doing some testing on my personal website for functionality with JavaScript disabled, and came across this article… with JavaScript still disabled, btw. NO, images are NOT downloaded inside a element
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |