True I suppose. But if the reader is a "I disable JavaScript" type of person, isn't this pretty far from something they'd be interested in? I will preface the following with an, "OK yea kind of a joke but you get the point" comment, but I mean you don't use QR codes as a marketing strategy for the Amish.
I don’t know I agree with this perspective. The internet is in many ways an unsafe space & surfing it with JavaScript in allowlist mode (e.g. blocking by default) should be in the bag of tricks users can use to mitigate some potential issues. One may also want to automate scraping these docs to put in another tool or in a new, independent search engine whose MVP isn’t including a whole JavaScript runtime (and can be trick to read from the source code if using a tool that generates docs from comments instead of a generic file so the output HTML is easier to consume).
Setting a good example & being a good steward of the net is something docs like these could/should provide; that is to say, the author could make the static parts static & offer a <noscript> with a brief description of the interactivity the user might be missing. The docs are likely coming from dog-fooding the library, but came at the cost of making static content maximally available & providing a noscript message.
