Jump to end of page in NOSCRIPT block (skip rest of page)?

V

VanguardLH

If the user's web browser happens to go into a <NOSCRIPT>...</NOSCRIPT>
block (because scripting isn't supported or is disabled), I don't want
anything else of the HTML document rendered (as it would be superfluous
since the site demands the use of scripts). So I have something like (a
very simplistic model shown here):

<HTML>
<BODY>
<NOSCRIPT>
NOSCRIPT block code
</NOSCRIPT>
<BR /><HR />
Other HTML code
</BODY>
</HTML>

If scripting is disabled and the user visits this page, they'll see:

NOSCRIPT block code
Other HTML code

Nope, don't want anything outside the NOSCRIPT block to get rendered.
So I need something like:

<HTML>
<BODY>
<NOSCRIPT>
NOSCRIPT block code
{something here to *automatically* jump to skiptoend anchor)
</NOSCRIPT>
<BR /><HR />
Other HTML code
<A name="#skiptoend></A>
</BODY>
</HTML>

I used the concept of an anchor since that gives a location in the
document of where to jump. However, for the {something} statement, I
can't just use:

<A href="#skiptoend">Skip to End of Page</A>

since that would present the link but not actually jump to the anchor on
the page. The user would have to click and then it would be too late as
they would already see:

NOSCRIPT block code
/Skip to End of Page/ <-- a link
Other HTML code

I want only the NOSCRIPT block to get executed and nothing else that may
be later in the HTML document if scripting is disabled. Obviously it
can't be a script that does a goto equivalent command since this is a
NOSCRIPT block. I don't want halt rendering to present a hyperlink to
an anchor or alert box (the user shouldn't have to click on anything to
finish the rendering of the document when scripting is disabled). I
can't see an attribute that could be added in the anchor with href to
make an *automatic* jump to where the anchor is defined.

Either the simple non-scripted HTML code inside the NOSCRIPT block would
somehow terminate the document (so nothing thereafter gets executed) or
somehow does the equivalent of a goto command (which is why I thought of
an automatic jump to an anchor). Is there anything within simple
non-scripted HTML that will do this?

Or am I stuck with having to use scripting, if supported, to load a
different document and position the NOSCRIPT block at the end so it
happens to drop off by its position at the end of the page, as in:

<HTML>
<BODY>

<!-- If scripting is enabled, load other page. -->
<SCRIPT language="Javascript" type="text/javascript">
<!-- hide script code if not supported by web browser
window.location.href = "otherpage.htm";
// unhide -->
</SCRIPT>

<!-- If scripting is disabled, alert user. -->
<NOSCRIPT>
Your web browser does not support scripts
or support for scripts has been disabled.
</NOSCRIPT>

</BODY>
</HTML>

I'd rather keep it as one document (where the end of the NOSCRIPT block
somehow exits the document or automatically jumps to the end) rather
than having to load 2 of them (to eliminate falling through the NOSCRIPT
block to then render whatever is below it).
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

VanguardLH said:
If the user's web browser happens to go into a
<NOSCRIPT>...</NOSCRIPT> block (because scripting isn't supported or
is disabled), I don't want anything else of the HTML document
rendered (as it would be superfluous since the site demands the use
of scripts).
Click to expand...

The NOSCRIPT element is a rude tool, and it is frowned upon in HTML5 drafts,
but in simple cases, rude tools can do their job. But this does not look
like a simple case.

A logical approach would be to write the page so that document's static
content is just the content to be shown when scripting is off. (You might
wrap that inside NOSCRIPT just to be sure that scripting-enabled browsers
don't show it even for a fraction of a second.) And you would have a script
that dynamically creates the content needed for the scripting-enabled use.
Depending on the situation, this might be unnecessarily complex, or it might
be easier than writing it as HTML markup (e.g., if it would contains lots of
items written according to some pattern).

Beware that the static content would be all that search engines see.
So I need something like: - -
{something here to *automatically* jump to skiptoend anchor)
Click to expand...

You don't jump in HTML. HTML is a poor lonesome data format, not a
programming language. And you explicitly want to do something in a situation
where scripting - a programming language - is not available.

A simple, maybe too simplistic, approach would be to put all the other
content but the NOSCRIPT element in a DIV element, set display: none for it
and turn it to display: block as the first operation in your script.
Something like the following;

<style>
#id { display: none; }
</style>
<script>
function init() {
document.getElementById("content").style.display = 'block'; }
</script>
[...]
<body onload="init()">
[...]
<div id="content">
[...]
</div>

When style sheet support is disabled in the browser or the page style sheet
is discarded, the content would be visible even when scripting is off, but I
don't think that's serious - the situation is not very common, and the user
sees the NOSCRIPT content first anyway.
<NOSCRIPT>
Your web browser does not support scripts
or support for scripts has been disabled.
</NOSCRIPT>
Click to expand...

To someone who has willfully disabled scripting for security or efficiency
reasons, that does not look like a compelling reason to switch it on, does
it? And if I worked in an office where the company's firewall strips off all
Javascript, would I be tempted to re-visit the page at home in a more
liberal environment?

At least give a hint to the user what he would get if scripting were
available.
 
V

VanguardLH

Jukka said:
The NOSCRIPT element is a rude tool, and it is frowned upon in HTML5 drafts,
but in simple cases, rude tools can do their job. But this does not look
like a simple case.

A logical approach would be to write the page so that document's static
content is just the content to be shown when scripting is off. (You might
wrap that inside NOSCRIPT just to be sure that scripting-enabled browsers
don't show it even for a fraction of a second.) And you would have a script
that dynamically creates the content needed for the scripting-enabled use.
Depending on the situation, this might be unnecessarily complex, or it might
be easier than writing it as HTML markup (e.g., if it would contains lots of
items written according to some pattern).
Click to expand...

Alas the front-end or main page is already written and I don't get to
control its content but might've been able to copy it into this
script-check page. I just wanted to add a notice if the user
mistakeningly visited this internal-use-only site with scripting
disabled (and then skip everything else). That's why I came up with the
scheme to use javascript to load the other already designed page if
scripting were enabled but then I have a lead or main page with not much
in it and I was merely looking to consolidate.

They don't want to write an alternate no-scripted web page and have
assumed in the past that scripting would always be enabled for their
sites (their internal and external ones). I thought I'd add a check
just to be sure.
Beware that the static content would be all that search engines see.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, I'll have to define a robot.txt file to request
search engines NOT index this site. It's for internal-use only although
access must be across the Internet (i.e., outside the corporate
network). So maybe using the script to load the real front-end page is
best since nothing of it would get indexed and there are no links
pointing to it other than the window.location.href javascript command.
You don't jump in HTML. HTML is a poor lonesome data format, not a
programming language. And you explicitly want to do something in a situation
where scripting - a programming language - is not available.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but hope springs eternal even when you suspect your hope
will get dashed. I looked at the attributes for the NOSCRIPT and anchor
tags but it didn't look promising that anything might be contrived or
vaguely documented that might perform an automatic jump to an anchor.
A simple, maybe too simplistic, approach would be to put all the other
content but the NOSCRIPT element in a DIV element, set display: none for it
and turn it to display: block as the first operation in your script.
Something like the following;

<style>
#id { display: none; }
</style>
<script>
function init() {
document.getElementById("content").style.display = 'block'; }
</script>
[...]
<body onload="init()">
[...]
<div id="content">
[...]
</div>
Click to expand...

But showing the other content outside the NOSCRIPT block was what I was
trying to avoid. I didn't want to confuse the visitors with anything
other than to notify them that scripting *is* required for using the
site. No scripting, no entrance.
When style sheet support is disabled in the browser or the page style sheet
is discarded, the content would be visible even when scripting is off, but I
don't think that's serious - the situation is not very common, and the user
sees the NOSCRIPT content first anyway.


To someone who has willfully disabled scripting for security or efficiency
reasons, that does not look like a compelling reason to switch it on, does
it? And if I worked in an office where the company's firewall strips off all
Javascript, would I be tempted to re-visit the page at home in a more
liberal environment?

At least give a hint to the user what he would get if scripting were
available.
Click to expand...

This is an internal-use only site for dispatcher and resource scheduling
but needs Internet access for off-site access (we figured on setting up
HTTPS to secure the data but they haven't decided on using VPN or not).
Except for anonymous access to this script-check page and the first
selector page (that it now loads if scripting is enabled), users can't
visit the site unless they login (anonymous access is not permitted to
the other directories). So the users (of which there may be 1 to 5)
will very much know what this site is for. This is the case where a
master car mechanic would know at a glance for what that speciality
thingamajig in his toolbar is for but no one would have a clue.

Because the site heavily uses Javascript along with PHP, there is no
point in visiting it without scripting support in the web browser. I
just want to check that they didn't leave scripting disabled in their
web browser when they come to this internal-use site. If scripting is
disabled then they cannot use this site but I want to give them notice.
If they don't login, they also don't get to use the site. If they
disable SSL connects then they won't get the web pages. You can't get
in without your passkey, no exceptions. No passkey, no entrance. No
scripting, no entrance.

Thanks for trying to help. It did help me to learn about the display
none/block mechanism for future reference.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

VanguardLH said:
Alas the front-end or main page is already written and I don't get to
control its content but might've been able to copy it into this
script-check page.
Click to expand...

It's rather difficult to suggest an approach without knowing the
circumstances and restrictions.
But showing the other content outside the NOSCRIPT block was what I
was trying to avoid.
Click to expand...

Setting display: none for it will do just that, with the usual CSS caveats.
The unusual caveats contain the point that you need to note that my sketchy
code was sloppy - I used #id when I meant #content.
 
A

Adrienne Boswell

Because the site heavily uses Javascript along with PHP, there is no
point in visiting it without scripting support in the web browser.
Click to expand...

You could do something server side if client side scripting is not
available, perhaps redirect to a page saying JavaScript is required.

Send something client side to the server, if the server receives it, then
client side scripting is available, if not, then redirect.
 
H

Helpful person

If the user's web browser happens to go into a <NOSCRIPT>...</NOSCRIPT>
block (because scripting isn't supported or is disabled), I don't want
anything else of the HTML document rendered (as it would be superfluous
since the site demands the use of scripts).  So I have something like (a
very simplistic model shown here):

<HTML>
  <BODY>
    <NOSCRIPT>
      NOSCRIPT block code
    </NOSCRIPT>
    <BR /><HR />
    Other HTML code
  </BODY>
</HTML>

If scripting is disabled and the user visits this page, they'll see:

NOSCRIPT block code
Other HTML code

Nope, don't want anything outside the NOSCRIPT block to get rendered.
So I need something like:

<HTML>
  <BODY>
    <NOSCRIPT>
      NOSCRIPT block code
      {something here to *automatically* jump to skiptoend anchor)
    </NOSCRIPT>
    <BR /><HR />
    Other HTML code
    <A name="#skiptoend></A>
  </BODY>
</HTML>

I used the concept of an anchor since that gives a location in the
document of where to jump.  However, for the {something} statement, I
can't just use:

  <A href="#skiptoend">Skip to End of Page</A>

since that would present the link but not actually jump to the anchor on
the page.  The user would have to click and then it would be too late as
they would already see:

NOSCRIPT block code
/Skip to End of Page/  <-- a link
Other HTML code

I want only the NOSCRIPT block to get executed and nothing else that may
be later in the HTML document if scripting is disabled.  Obviously it
can't be a script that does a goto equivalent command since this is a
NOSCRIPT block.  I don't want halt rendering to present a hyperlink to
an anchor or alert box (the user shouldn't have to click on anything to
finish the rendering of the document when scripting is disabled).  I
can't see an attribute that could be added in the anchor with href to
make an *automatic* jump to where the anchor is defined.

Either the simple non-scripted HTML code inside the NOSCRIPT block would
somehow terminate the document (so nothing thereafter gets executed) or
somehow does the equivalent of a goto command (which is why I thought of
an automatic jump to an anchor).  Is there anything within simple
non-scripted HTML that will do this?

Or am I stuck with having to use scripting, if supported, to load a
different document and position the NOSCRIPT block at the end so it
happens to drop off by its position at the end of the page, as in:

<HTML>
  <BODY>

    <!-- If scripting is enabled, load other page. -->
    <SCRIPT language="Javascript" type="text/javascript">
    <!-- hide script code if not supported by web browser
      window.location.href = "otherpage.htm";
    // unhide -->
    </SCRIPT>

    <!-- If scripting is disabled, alert user. -->
    <NOSCRIPT>
      Your web browser does not support scripts
      or support for scripts has been disabled.  
    </NOSCRIPT>

  </BODY>
</HTML>

I'd rather keep it as one document (where the end of the NOSCRIPT block
somehow exits the document or automatically jumps to the end) rather
than having to load 2 of them (to eliminate falling through the NOSCRIPT
block to then render whatever is below it).
Click to expand...

I forget the exact syntax etc but surely you could use a class for
nodisplay
 
T

Tim Streater

[hundreds of lines snipped]

Dear Hopeless person,

I don't know what your "helpful"addition might have been as you left
hundreds of lines of unsnipped stuff there, and I saw no reason to
scroll down.
 
D

dorayme

Tim Streater said:
[hundreds of lines snipped]
Click to expand...

Google Groupers do this as a matter of course because on GG, the
interface hides them and gives the reader an option to see.
Telling a GG to quote properly just gets an uncomprehending blank
stare. Not nice for those of us with newsreaders! One could just
filter all GGs except that not all GG are worthless lost causes.
 
T

Tim Streater

dorayme said:
Tim Streater said:
[hundreds of lines snipped]
Click to expand...

Google Groupers do this as a matter of course because on GG, the
interface hides them and gives the reader an option to see.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I think this is so when the GG-er is *viewing* a thread,
and its posts, but when you *reply* to one you get the full montey, the
whole ball of wax, everything. So I assert that it's quite possible for
the soppy date to trim appropriately.
 
D

dorayme

Tim Streater said:
dorayme said:
Tim Streater said:
[hundreds of lines snipped]
Click to expand...

Google Groupers do this as a matter of course because on GG, the
interface hides them and gives the reader an option to see.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I think this is so when the GG-er is *viewing* a thread,
and its posts, but when you *reply* to one you get the full montey, the
whole ball of wax, everything. So I assert that it's quite possible for
the soppy date to trim appropriately.
Click to expand...

I was not meaning to imply that anyone, including a GG, could not
trim and the trimmed not appear. It is that they don't because
they have less motivation, the G interface often hiding quoted
text that has not been edited - yes, even though it shows up when
you are in the act of replying. And placing it under a link that
says "- Show quoted text -", clicking of which reveals it in
full. Quite clever really. But all this is absolutely infuriating
to those of us with half decent newsreaders!

I remember the good Els, (remember Els?), very patiently
explaining to GGs how to edit their posts on quite a few
occasions. Others would explain what would happen to them if they
were ever caught live. <g>
 
D

dorayme

Lewis said:
Sez you
Click to expand...

But I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, certainly on the
balance of probabilities. Reflect on the meaning of "some" and
"not all".

So put up a substantial amount of a bet, we get an escrow setup
and we appoint a panel of proven reasonable and fair minded
people and let's go. I never ever can get any fluce off any of
you wild-talking usenet guys so I won't hold my breath. <g>
 
L

Lewis

In message said:
But I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, certainly on the
balance of probabilities. Reflect on the meaning of "some" and
"not all".
Click to expand...
So put up a substantial amount of a bet, we get an escrow setup
and we appoint a panel of proven reasonable and fair minded
people and let's go. I never ever can get any fluce off any of
you wild-talking usenet guys so I won't hold my breath. <g>
Click to expand...

We'd never agree on the panel since my very definition of reasonable and
fair-minded would require that they have kill-filed googlegroups posts.

Alas, an impasse.
Click to expand...
 
D

dorayme

Lewis said:
In message said:
We'd never agree on the panel since my very definition of reasonable and
fair-minded would require that they have kill-filed googlegroups posts.
Click to expand...

I am mildly surprised that you would admit to such
unreasonableness publicly! This is like betting with someone that
X is bigger than 4 feet wide and adding that your definition of X
includes the idea of more than 4 feet wide.
Alas, an impasse.
Click to expand...

Not of my making. I would have thought the criteria for *worth*
would be a rich set of things that could easily overwhelm such
lone oddities as ignorance of usenet and using GG.
Click to expand...
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

**NEED HELP** How to refresh animation so the rest of page can load 0
On-air script 0
Help with <noscript> 11
How to use PDF-lib and how to center each line of texts on the page? 1
How jump inside page? 7
Rendering noscript content only 17
Help with my responsive home page 2
How to have two html audio players on one page? 0

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 31 (members: 1, guests: 30)
Robots: 451

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,580
Members
45,055
Latest member
SlimSparkKetoACVReview

Latest Threads

Top