View Full Version : java script enabled browser

11-13-2002, 02:03 AM
Is there an easy way to tell if a person visiting your site has script (java scipt in particular enabled)????? Thanks

11-13-2002, 02:07 AM
well, in order to do what? trying to use javascript, to find out if javascript is turned off, in order to do something with javascript, obviously isn't going to work. are you looking for this as a value in a form submission? what is it that you're looking to do?

11-13-2002, 02:11 AM
I have a page that is password protected with a java script but if java script is disabled than it passes right over the password check. I know this is not the tightest security but it is really all i need for now.

11-13-2002, 02:27 AM
well, i don't think there's anything that's gonna help you in this case. there are <noscript> tags, and everything inside of them, is only shown if the user hasn't got javascript ( or hasn't got it turned on ), but i don't see how that's gonna do you any good.


11-13-2002, 02:30 AM
Well, my skewed logic is this....

If they have JS disabled, they can reach your "protected" page as long as they know the exact URL. But if they know the exact URL, then they must have originally had the password. That, or they were given the exact URL ... and they could have been given the actual password just the same.

Basically, don't worry about it. The JS protection I use on a couple of my sites makes the protected page (not an entire site) something like 7394810293841893844.htm. So, I'm not too worried about anyone guessing it! And if they do...power to them.

11-13-2002, 02:48 AM
something just occurred to me:

<TITLE>Uh-oh, No JavaScript...</TITLE>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="10; URL=http://www.yoursite.com/pageForNoJS.htm">
<TITLE>Please enter password</TITLE>

that'd be a redirect after 10 seconds ( you can change the number of seconds ), for people who don't have javascript. it should work in most browsers.

11-13-2002, 03:25 AM
it does work - I use it all the time. But note that it doesn't validate: W3C doesn't like having meta tags nested like that...

11-13-2002, 03:26 AM
thank you very much i think that will work for now.

11-13-2002, 03:37 AM
dumb question - what is wc3

11-13-2002, 03:59 AM
not a dumb question - just a newbie question...

... a/k/a the World Wide Web Consortium, whose mission is to develop, recommend and establish universal standards for the web.


Note that there is a difference between a standards body, which is prescriptive, and a totalitarian dictatorship, which is proscriptive - a distinction often ignored by its adherents and proselytizers.

11-13-2002, 08:39 PM
realisis, i'd love to tell you what i think the w3c can do with about 70% of their standards, but this is a mixed community, and we have rules about that kind of language. i personally don't care at all if my pages have the right doctype, if they validates, or if they use the "wonderful" new dom. i just want my pages to work.


just my opinion

11-13-2002, 08:51 PM
Well not trying to argue but without the W3C NS and Microsoft would have continued down their seperate paths as they were years ago and we would end up having to make completely seperate sites for each browser. Those standards and guidelines give the browser engineers something to go by and to prevent web developers from having nervous breakdowns. :)

Kind of like having rules of the road. Without them the roads would be chaos.

11-17-2002, 12:08 AM
I'm with you, Spookster. I'm actually starting to see more things working cross-browser, and I hope it's a trend that continues. And personally, I LIKE XHTML much more than being able to just code sloppy stuff - the old ways have spawned a whole lot of garbage code (and pages).

And ASP.NET (yeah, a $MS tech, but I'm already seeing job postings for people with .NET experience!) makes heavy use of XML from what I understand as well - probably why my first class next month is called "Developing XML Web Services". :)

Motif Webs
11-17-2002, 09:35 AM
I'm kinda with Spookster except for a couple of things:

* the W3C's website is possibly the most bureaucratic mess I've ever seen - and this is from someone who spent 13+ years in the bureaucracy and speaks fluent bureaucratese. They really have taken the definition of a camel being a horse designed by a committee to its (in)finite conclusion.

* I also suspect those kind, public-spirited and caring souls that make up the W3C (aka in some circles as "the Borg") really don't like people to design websites that have pictures or attractive layouts.

* Another suspicion is that they don't like making websites to be so easy that "just anyone" can do it. Why else attempt to remove tags that were logical and sensible such as "font", "center", etc?

Sorry, I know it's all more complex than that, but then again try and make sense reading the BS on www.w3c.org.

Having said that, I do agree with standards and the need for the browsers from the various companies to at least meet them.