[sublinear]

No, I didn't miss that part. It's irrelevant to my point.

The noscript tag is just a way to conditionally display some HTML. There's no reason to avoid using it unless you are deeply entrenched in a pseudoreligious fight against javascript.

It really is just whining.

> didn't have the same budgets, tools, and browsers as today, where you couldn't seamlessly enhance the site how you can now

I'm sorry, but... what?

[DanHulton]

noscript came before modern CSS, it came before XMLHttpRequest, it was around before a lot of things. It was before we had modern standards and practices around progressive enhancement. A lot of things that are commonplace and easy to do now would require hours and hours of hand-writing javascript, instead of using modern libraries and selectors to easily target and replace content.

I don't know if you were coding back in those days, but I definitely remember how much more work it was to do progressive enhancement back then if you wanted a really JS-enhanced site. We were all basically individually inventing it, because it hadn't be standardized and popularized yet.

I honestly don't understand the framing of best practices here as "whining." I also don't understand your refusal to read the article, because you say "no reason" but the article explicitly states the reason:

> The noscript element is a blunt instrument. Sometimes, scripts might be enabled, but for some reason the page's script might fail.

I dunno, I like having my page continue to reasonably work when unforeseen errors happen. (And they do happen. We've been at this business for decades, but errors have happened, can happen, and will continue to happen.) I generally prefer my users to have a good experience when possible. And if I can design my page intelligently, to progressively enhance, instead of displaying a blunt "WHAT ARE YOU, A JAVASCRIPT-HATER LOL" error message, well, I'd prefer that. =)