[afandian]

Your argument holds for web apps where it might be extra work to do progressive enhancement. But this is literally a webpage of text. It is more work to get JS involved.

Humans using off the shelf browsers aren't the only ones who consume webpages.

[jonknee]

> But this is literally a webpage of text. It is more work to get JS involved. Humans using off the shelf browsers aren't the only ones who consume webpages.

Sort of, the contents of the post are in a database somewhere. It's not like someone uploaded a .html page to Blogspot and they converted it into JS. The JS makes it easier for users to customize templates.

The main reason you'd want to avoid doing something like this is that the Googlebot would penalize you, but somehow I doubt Google is concerned with that.

That said, it has a <noscript> version that seems to work fine (I turned off JS and it renders as expected.

[Nicksil]

> Sort of, the contents of the post are in a database somewhere. It's not like someone uploaded a .html page to Blogspot and they converted it into JS. The JS makes it easier for users to customize templates.

That's not always the case, either, however. There are a great many (majority?) of database-driven websites out there with framework-rendered templates; Django, Flask, Ruby on Rails, etc. They are not constructed using -- nor are they dependent upon -- JavaScript.