Noscript #10

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@jweir

jweir commented Apr 4, 2012

I have a solution to the "no javascript" problem. Let me know what you think.

I wanted to just wrap the img tag (with a default src attribute) in a noscript tag. Then scan the noscript and rebuild the dom as necessary. But IE doesn't allow access to the DOM of noscript. So the solution isn't as elegant as I would like.

see unit/test.html and the README for examples

Also...

I want to see the README dive right into how Molt works, so I moved the "reasoning" down. I hope that makes sense to you.

jweir added some commits Apr 4, 2012

molt.noscript will scan for images in noscript tags and add them to t…
…he DOM

the noscript tag must have the class 'molt-ir'
Updated README
Move the reasoning down to the bottom of the page.  
Have the README get right into what Molt is and how to use it.
fix noscript for IE
Had to change the syntax since IE does not allow access to
the noscript tag contents
@pyrsmk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyrsmk

pyrsmk Apr 5, 2012

Owner

Awesome!

I agree with your changes in the README. But, maybe we shouldn't use cambelt.co generated images for unit tests since it's not always the case that we have internet.

Also, I think we should merge the noscript() method to the discover() one.

Owner

pyrsmk commented Apr 5, 2012

Awesome!

I agree with your changes in the README. But, maybe we shouldn't use cambelt.co generated images for unit tests since it's not always the case that we have internet.

Also, I think we should merge the noscript() method to the discover() one.

@pyrsmk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyrsmk

pyrsmk Apr 5, 2012

Owner

Furthermore, you need to update molt version int molt.js and README.markdown to 2.5.0. And, also, build molt to have the minified versions ;)

Owner

pyrsmk commented Apr 5, 2012

Furthermore, you need to update molt version int molt.js and README.markdown to 2.5.0. And, also, build molt to have the minified versions ;)

@jweir

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jweir

jweir Apr 5, 2012

Not using cambelt.co is fine. This was a sketch to see if you liked the idea.

If you think noscript() is best incorporated in discover(), so be it. It will probably need to be updated – if it is called more than once there might be negative side effects.

jweir commented Apr 5, 2012

Not using cambelt.co is fine. This was a sketch to see if you liked the idea.

If you think noscript() is best incorporated in discover(), so be it. It will probably need to be updated – if it is called more than once there might be negative side effects.

@pyrsmk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyrsmk

pyrsmk Apr 6, 2012

Owner

Uh... I see what you're talking about. Maybe we should drop parsed noscript markups?

Owner

pyrsmk commented Apr 6, 2012

Uh... I see what you're talking about. Maybe we should drop parsed noscript markups?

@pyrsmk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyrsmk

pyrsmk May 17, 2012

Owner

What do you think about that? ^^

Owner

pyrsmk commented May 17, 2012

What do you think about that? ^^

@jweir

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jweir

jweir May 17, 2012

Maybe, I am not sure.

I ended up taking a different route. I needed to have something like molt, but I didn't need the screen resize/refresh.

I took your concept and created a new script. It depends on jQuery, doesn't have any noscript support (it isn't needed in my case), also it loads images in a controlled manner – which is critical in my cause since there might 90 hi res images on a page. It all our loaded at once it takes longer to see the first few images.

https://gist.github.com/2719090

jweir commented May 17, 2012

Maybe, I am not sure.

I ended up taking a different route. I needed to have something like molt, but I didn't need the screen resize/refresh.

I took your concept and created a new script. It depends on jQuery, doesn't have any noscript support (it isn't needed in my case), also it loads images in a controlled manner – which is critical in my cause since there might 90 hi res images on a page. It all our loaded at once it takes longer to see the first few images.

https://gist.github.com/2719090

@pyrsmk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyrsmk

pyrsmk May 18, 2012

Owner

I don't exactly understand... What is the differences between our scripts?

And why do you want to drop W features (refreshing on resize/zoom)? It could be interesting if I put W features as an option in molt, maybe.

Owner

pyrsmk commented May 18, 2012

I don't exactly understand... What is the differences between our scripts?

And why do you want to drop W features (refreshing on resize/zoom)? It could be interesting if I put W features as an option in molt, maybe.

@jweir

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jweir

jweir May 18, 2012

Here is what is different:

The block of sizing code is separate from the URL. This made it bit easier to code, although using the "*" for a replacement might bite me.

I don't need the W support. I need to load image sizes based upon the device's screen size, not the window size. The last thing I want is to load new images when the screen resizes.

I need orderly loading of images. The faster the first, second, third, ... image load, the better.

My images come from different hosts. The browser will try to load more than three images at a time. This slows down the time to see the first image. So my script has stricter controls on how images load.

Finally, having a jQuery dependency is not a bad thing for my needs.


Molt is solving a slightly different problem. Making W an option might be a good idea, or not. I don't know.

Molt's charm is the html syntax. Once I saw the below, it was an ah ha moment:

jweir commented May 18, 2012

Here is what is different:

The block of sizing code is separate from the URL. This made it bit easier to code, although using the "*" for a replacement might bite me.

I don't need the W support. I need to load image sizes based upon the device's screen size, not the window size. The last thing I want is to load new images when the screen resizes.

I need orderly loading of images. The faster the first, second, third, ... image load, the better.

My images come from different hosts. The browser will try to load more than three images at a time. This slows down the time to see the first image. So my script has stricter controls on how images load.

Finally, having a jQuery dependency is not a bad thing for my needs.


Molt is solving a slightly different problem. Making W an option might be a good idea, or not. I don't know.

Molt's charm is the html syntax. Once I saw the below, it was an ah ha moment:

@pyrsmk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyrsmk

pyrsmk Oct 29, 2012

Owner

Woo, 5 months...

Anyway... Not loading new images when the screen/window resizes could be a great option for molt. And especially loading images in order. I think I'll should put my hands on that thing later, when I'll work on the merge of your pull request ;)

Owner

pyrsmk commented Oct 29, 2012

Woo, 5 months...

Anyway... Not loading new images when the screen/window resizes could be a great option for molt. And especially loading images in order. I think I'll should put my hands on that thing later, when I'll work on the merge of your pull request ;)

@pyrsmk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyrsmk

pyrsmk Apr 14, 2014

Owner

I close that PR. Nowadays, supporting a noscript seems useless.

Owner

pyrsmk commented Apr 14, 2014

I close that PR. Nowadays, supporting a noscript seems useless.

@pyrsmk pyrsmk closed this Apr 14, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment